Kerr Watch

Number of days writer Richard Kerr has failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 4 years

Recent Comments

CT Post Calendar

December 2014
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

The Cosmic Tusk Newsletter

Loading...Loading...


Beyond Compelling: Evidence Worldwide of Baillie Year Catastrophes In Human History

36 comments to Beyond Compelling: Evidence Worldwide of Baillie Year Catastrophes In Human History

  • Jonny

    George are you sure you have the title of this post correct, since the slides show no evidence of a catastrophe at 1653 BC?

  • chicken little

    your right , he states it was approximately 2350 and approx 1150.

    but the dating by rings has quite a few built in assumptions which are not yet proven , the assumptions are of “normal” and or regular growth and or seasonal cycles. and that isn’t a proven concept.
    so really they are only “proving ” approximates and irregularities in grow the normal cycles and approximate ages that is all that is really proved by growth rings. it assumes a summer, it assumes a wet season and it assumes a heat cycle.. these are just assumptions. if anyone of them is missing so will the tree rings be missing if any of these are missing and also it assumes only one growth ring a year and that isn’t proven that there might be conditions which trigger two to twelve growth rings in any non ‘ normal’ as we determined to be a “normal” year . the limits of human thought has just way to many assumptions about what is normal in any given group of time frames .
    bible clearly indicates a age in the past and in the future where trees bear fruit every month… that probably meant at some age there was twelve rings a year. so I am not convinced all things we see now are any where close to a “normal” … which is sciences assumptions and totally unprovable.

  • Chicken,

    The Most laughable “assumption” in your comment above is your own untested and un-provable assumption that you have even remotest clue of what you are talking about. You are clearly suffering from an overwhelming manifestation of the Dunning–Kruger effect

    This is a science site, not a religious site. If we want religion we can all get weekly doses at the congregations of our choice. If you’re going to preach to us, and cite the bible as your only reference for your silly and speculative theory that trees might have once had multiple growth rings per year (You’re completely ignoring the sciences of Climatology, and Dendrology here) you’re going to have to quote chapter, and verse. Unfortunately for your argument, no such biblical verse exists.

    Since this is a science blog, and not a speculative young-Earth, Christian fundamentalist religious site, I would hope that you have the common decency to respect our individual religious beliefs, and spare us the holier-than-thou, hell-fire-and-damnation, preaching, and references to non-existent biblical content.

    The most pertinent reference to this post is Mike Baillie’s book Exodus to Arthur, not the Bible. And to anyone who is serious about studying what clues dendrochronology can provide regarding comet induced catastrophes in human times, Mike’s work should be considered required reading.

    Mike Baillie’s work on Dendrochronology is very well respected, and duplicated by many other scientists. There is no science whatsoever to support your ridiculous, and completely uninformed, invalidation of that work.

  • Jonny

    Indeed, some species of trees can and do produce double rings, or miss rings all together, depending upon climate conditions, which is why these trees are not desirable for use in dendrochronology. The reason why European oak is considered for robust chronology creation is that oaks put on one growth ring per year, as well as being long lived allowing for better statistical cross matching for constructing a chronology.

    While for the most part the general construction of the oak chronology relies upon the assumption that one ring forms each year, this assumption is based upon a history of observation where oaks do put on one growth ring per year. If Chicken Little understood anything about how a tree grows, he would better understand why dendrochronolgy (and in particular oak dendrochronolgy) can be a precise dating technique (see Fritts Tree Rings and Climate change and The British Oak by Morris and Perring for more detail of tree growth).

    Anomalies do occur, such as ghost rings, which appear as an annual growth ring, but is in fact due to internal structure within an annual growth ring. Rings or parts of rings can be found to be missing, for example in a Bronze age oak stake from the Somerset Levels, a ring was observed that was missing about 5 centimetres of early wood, but over the rest of the circumference this ring had normal growth. There is no known record of a double ring in oak, and it is unknown for an oak to miss a complete growth ring, only in some cases for the ring to be missing locally within the tree as in the Somerset example above.

    Obviously, due to anomalies, replication is important (as it is in all science), and if anything the Irish Oak chronology is very well replicated both internally by multiple sampling of trees, and externally with other oak chronologies such as English and German Oaks.

    With regards to Chicken Little’s statement that Mike refers to circa 2350 and 1159, BC you will also note that he states 1628/1627, and a few other dates, but not 1653 BC, which is why I asked if the the original title was correct given the inclusion of 1653 BC in the title (I wasnt sure whether it was a typo or not).

  • George Howard

    From: http://www.minoanatlantis.com/LM_IB_Destruction.php

    “The event that really brought the entire Minoan civilization to its knees was a massive fire destruction of central and eastern Crete that occurred at about the same time as the eruption. It was so overwhelmingly catastrophic that apparently most, or all, of the remaining palaces, towns, and villas in central and eastern Crete that survived the tsunamis were decimated by fire. The archaeology is resoundingly clear in that it did happen. There is significant evidence of an intense spectacular fire destruction at several sites – Ayia Triada, Gournia, Malia, Palaikastro, Petras, Phaistos, Sklavokambos, Zakros, etc. It seems the conflagration came upon them without warning by some unknown cause.

    This fiery cataclysm is called the Late Minoan IB (LM IB) destruction event. It was so wide spread that many scholars describe it as a destruction horizon. Science has never been able to definitively explain its cause. Though damaged Knossos was repaired to a degree and continued to carry on in some reduced fashion in the following periods. All of the other palaces were fiercely burned and abandoned forever! The LM IB destruction event marks the abrupt end of the Late Minoan I period. What could possibly have caused this disaster?”

  • chicken little

    the restoration the appropriate concept there is RE……. in or of the Sabbath Day .

    or of the time during the long day of rest as opposed to the long night of unrest ..

    is partially revealed in Ezekial.

    there is enough clues there for anyone that wishes to believe .

    it is also very helpful if you are trying to correct anyone to have read more than the red letters before you tell someone what the book says.

  • chicken little

    it is you who are convinced you can determine
    what “normal” is what normal does .

    I on the other hand would never assume to know what a “normal” tree does on the many different and or extreme conditions which have been presented to them over the ages. so your time tables are just more assumptions based in ignorant judgements of what Normal does and doesn’t do .

  • Hi Chicken Little,

    Could you clarify your logic for me in your previous post please?

    Quote’
    it is you who are convinced you can determine
    what “normal” is what normal does .
    I on the other hand would never assume to know what a “normal” tree does on the many different and or extreme conditions which have been presented to them over the ages. so your time tables are just more assumptions based in ignorant judgements of what Normal does and doesn’t do .
    ‘unquote

    Thanks, I am just curious

  • chicken little

    Act 3:21 For he must remain in heaven until the time for the final RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS, as God promised long ago through his holy prophets.

    we do not know what all the conditions were for every tree in every age and what a normal response is for all those possible conditions.

  • Hermann Burhard

    Chicken, just look at the tree rings, on slide 19 etc: Regular rings one after the other, year after year, then a slew of narrow rings from the bad years, followed by more regular ones. And the same identical pattern is repeated in oaks and pines worldwide.

    Jesus might have used tree rings in one of his parables, which he told for people who with open eyes look but don’t see, quoting Isaiah Mat. 13:14.

  • Hermann Burchard

    Chicken, just look at the tree rings, on slide 19 etc: Regular rings one after the other, year after year, then a slew of narrow rings from the bad years, followed by more regular ones. And the same identical pattern is repeated in oaks and pines worldwide.

    Jesus might have used tree rings in one of his parables, which he told for people who with open eyes look but don’t see, quoting Isaiah Mat. 13:14.

  • carol smith

    why bother to respond to him as he is a troll and clearly wants to disrupt the discourse. Ignore the twat

  • Chicken Little, yours is the behavior of a trol. Trols suck.

  • Steve Garcia

    There have been several requests for CL to be blocked because of this kind of behavior.

    George hasn’t been responsive to it. I don’t know why.

  • Barry Weathersby

    Little Chicken,

    I am not a scientist and a lot of my questions here draw sarcasm and even ridicule at my ignorance of the subjects discussed here, and I accept that. I do have an advanced degree in a non-scientific field but I am retired from that and have a burning interest in the subject at hand. I read this blog every day and look forward to new facts and information provided here. Like everyone else here I have no interest in your personal superstitions and beliefs. I realize you have a compulsion to proselytize and I understand that but please use another forum to advance your faith and your creation myth. I respect your religion… please respect mine.

  • George Howard

    I’m not sure what the angst is over. If the Chick ‘clucks things up’ badly I will spam it, but these comments do not seem to be too provocative. Nothing wrong with a little religious perspective being tossed into the mix. I promise to keep an eye out, however, in case comments becoming much more fowl. Watch it, Chick!

  • Steve Garcia

    George,

    I can appreciate your position. In the global warming give and take, there are skeptics’ blogs and there are climatologists’ blogs and middle-ground one blog that tries to straddle the extremes and bring some common ground. The top climatologist’s blogs are highly moderated to the point of a ‘powerful’ majority moderating out any comments that are not supportive of the anthropogenic/CO2 meme. The skeptic’s blogs (two in particular) and the middle-ground blog have huge numbers of participants – literally thousands of times more views and comments than the top climatologist’s blog, which for all intents and purposes has next to no participation.

    The two things that are not tolerated on the otherwise skeptics’ blogs are seriously off-topic comments and truly insulting behavior. The top climatologists’ blog moderates out comments up front, so that no one even knows the comments have been made. The skeptics’ blogs only delete them after they’ve been posted (there is no up-front moderation), and then leaves the header in any such comment with a note telling the commenter why his/her comment was erased. So there is at least a record that the comment was made.

    Those several blogs, however, have a subject matter that has daily activity out in the larger world – weather events, sea ice extent reports, monthly temperature average reports, journal papers, supposed ocean rising reports, lawsuits, UN IPCC summaries, conferences, and analyses of data up the wazoo – all kinds of things happening – because weather is always happening and turning eventually into part of the climate history. Not to mention FOI requests that end up sometimes in things like Climategate. Whenever there is any extreme weather occurs – especially the annual event known as summer – we are all certain to ‘Read all about it!” in blaring headlines.

    The YDB, on the other hand, has very few papers and only a rare celestial event to remind people that we are at risk of Tunguska’s and such. So, unless this planet is smacked by something that gets everybody’s attention, the CT site here will continue to have little numbers and little to moderate. This site is in need of more comments (as well as more posts), though neither is likely to happen.

    That said, I do think it is useful here to consider following the lead of the very popular climate skeptics’ blogs and try to keep people here from posting WAY off–topic comments, as well as completely offensive insults.

    George, you know that I had asked you to ask someone here to cease and desist, and you did not, and that is why my own comments here have dropped to almost nil. You have a duty to the subject matter and to those who comment here with the intent to inform themselves or to contribute. You also have a duty to stop troll activity. ALL blog administrators have that responsibility.

    George, I think you could learn something from the skeptics’ blogs. I think you are dropping the ball here. This site could have much more views and comments, except that as a proportion of total comments there is too much trolling here and too much personal attacks.

    BOTH are behavior that will turn people away. You have a choice every week to moderate in a way that will help bring people here and keep them here.

    The commenters here who have asked you to block chicken little are not some rabble like English soccer hooligans or vigilantes. There is nothing organized about it whatsoever. They are people who are giving you fair warning. Their red flags are a first step in some non-participation. They don’t want to come here and listen to some religious nut spewing some silly interpretation of gospel at us all. This is a scientific and historical blog, not The Revelation of chicken little on the Isle of Patmos unto the faithful in Ephesus.

    George, if you want it hijacked and effectively shut down, continue the way you are going. But if you want the blog to continue, you need to ask yourself what is transpiring here.

    Hey, it’s your blog; you can do anything you want with it.

    The question is: What do you, George want to do with it? Right now it is at odds with getting people interested enough to come here and stay and participate.

    Look at the last nine comments (not counting yours): The subject matter here is not even on the table. It is all about chicken little. Chicken has not only succeeded in shutting down reasoned comments about the subject matter, but has also slowed the comments down to a trickle. That is going in exactly the wrong direction.

    It is your choice, George. When are we going to get back to the science? Should I ask chicken little?

    Heck, I can’t even recommend this blog to anyone anymore.

  • George Howard

    Hard to argue with that, Steve. You’re fried, Chick.

    Steve, you are now Junior Woodchuck moderator. I will discuss off-line your duties and privilages.

    GAH

  • Hermann Burchard

    Barry: I read this blog every day and look forward to new facts and information provided here.

    My favorite example in Mike Baillie’s lecture is his amazing confirmation of ancient Irish Annals, slide # 27:

    2380 BC Nine thousand of Parthalon’s people died in one week….Ireland was thirty years waste till Neimhidh’s arrival.

    Steve: Great new duties for you, I foresee.. Best of luck!

  • Barry Weathersby

    Steve,

    Have mercy…

  • Steve Garcia

    George, if you are giving me moderator status, please send me an email to that effect. As my first act, I am demanding that you, George, suspend chicken little for 3 months. I don’t have moderator status yet as far as I know, so that is the only way I can see to get that done.

    George, please see that this suspension is put into place, effective this day and through and including November 28th 2012.

    To chicken little: This is a science and history multidisciplinary blog, and you know it. It is not a religious site. Religious tracts are allowed here only as source material and only when quoted and sources given. And those religious passages should be applicable directly to impacts. Your beliefs are not source materials. Religious passages in the Bible are also not source materials for this blog.

    Scientific beliefs/opinions/rebuttals/hypotheses/hypotheticals/musings/dataa/facts/papers/essays/links are all welcome, as always.

    Not all blogs have to let all people participate. Blogs are meeting places where people interested in a subject in more or less the same way can come and help each other understand the subject matter. Blogs are NOT where anyone can bring any silly belief and disrupt the give and take by hijacking the discussion. Moderators MUST be allowed to say, “Mr X, you have crossed a line, and we will not allow it anymore.” We are not bound by some Bloggers Creed to, for example, let chicken little sing Mary Poppins tunes here. We ARE allowed to say, “Sorry, that is too far afield. Go somewhere else, please. We don’t want you.”

    Several people here have said to George, “Please, chicken little has crossed the line. Do something about it.” If George wants to give me moderator status I will not abuse it, but chicken little has no more right to be here than does Mary Poppins. This is serious stuff, and we don’t bloody need the interminable
    off-topic distractions. Go to some Creationist site, chicken little. If you please. Or if you don’t please.

    If, after 3 months, you want to make an attempt to come back, without the religious belief crap, come one. But you will be on probation.

    That is, if George is serious about giving me moderator status which will allow me to do what I think needs being done. That is how I understood it, and that is what I mean to do if he does.

    Steve

  • Hermann Burchard

    There were many excellent, interesting comments posted here (few if any of which were mine). What do you like on Tusk, guys? Remark about that.

    This set of slides with Mike Baillie’s list of global catastrophe years, presented with proofs “BEYOND COMPELLING”, is totally out of this world, and humanity scarcely took notice. From Slide 10:

    3195, 2345, 1628, 1159, 207 BC, AD 540, add AD 1348

    (the last date from Mike’s “Black Death” book).

  • George Howard

    I am researching, Steve, and will follow up soon with an email.

  • I check CT.com every chance I get. Waaaayyyyy toooo often. The Mike Baillie Queen’s U of Belfast presentation above is a beautiful example of what is so captivating here – historic truth borne out by physical evidence, not hearsay (gospel).

    I come here for new evidence coming to light as new (crazy, brilliant, dedicated, over-the-top!) researchers bring that new evidence to light due to their un-imaginable foresight and un-ending motivation to follow where the physical evidence leads.

    Now by “new” researchers, I mean folks who have come along after the Uniformitarian rulers of the scientific universe have actually been pushed just far enough aside to actually let some light of a different color illuminate our thirsty minds.

    This site has changed my life. Even if I’m wrong about toroidal ball lightning delivering the sand that makes up the Carolina Bays. I made it up based (VERY loosely) on science and instead of being laughed off the internet I was embraced. That motivated me to think it through more carefully (more than one night). And then a very strange and wonderful thing happened.

    Because of the positive feedback response from the leader and followers of this site, I was inspired to do some serious brain exercises (which I didn’t really have time to) and was then able to characterize the possible mechanism by which more than one thousand cubic kilometers of perfectly pure, perfectly clean, perfectly uniform grain size sand could be emplaced over a significant percentage of the continental USA as distal ejecta from a colossal shallow angle bolide impact on a continental ice sheet, relatively recently in history, without leaving a major crater (aside from the Saginaw trench).

    All based on known science and well understood scientific principals.

    Yep. If you’re new to this forum, read it again….

    And certainly Michael Davias made it possible for me to do that, as did this beautiful e-venue which Mr. Howard has so wisely and persistently maintained. And the Carolina Bays are far from the end of the story, because other impact imprints are now being uncovered all over the world as intelligent truth seekers decide to think for themselves and realize that the traditional ‘lore’ of how the Earth’s surface came to look like it does may not be entirely accurate. At all. Imagine that!

    Sure enough, as more folks start thinking for themselves, you are going to get a revolution sooner or later. And newly available info channels like Google Earth act as forced air to the blast furnace of that revolution. Getting hotter by the week….

    Gospel is exactly what we are trying to sidestep here. We want truth as provided by physical evidence, even when the anti-climate-change right wingers want to discredit the top-end physicists who find the evidence. Actually, ESPECIALLY then! Because when we come together as scientists we overcome that nonsense, like we have now with the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. We find the truth. That way we actually have a chance to shape policy based on the truth, instead of based on the gospel or some other non-truth based belief system (I use the ‘gospel’ word loosely to imply religion in general and faith based policy in particular).

    I understand the church would have us believe that tithing will protect us from a 3 mile diameter bolide impact. I don’t actually go to church so I am, in fact, going on hearsay myself! But seriously, the church – BESTcorporate model in history! Longest lasting too. Unfortunately also highly unrealistic for space age policy basis.

    We need to cover the threat. Otherwise why are we procreating when we could be having an End-Of-It-All party with the college fund(s)!?!

    As for faith, I am a person of faith by all means. I place my faith in scientific method and logical reason as the eventual path by which we will find truth, historical, physical truth. I place my faith on Homo Sapien’s ability to use their brain and successfully improve our understanding of the environment and how things got the way they are. If we rely on someone else to find truth for us or settle to accept their version of truth, we may as well give up. Or simply tithe! No offense to the religious, but there is a place for that, and that place isn’t here.

    Here is the place for physical evidence and scientific theories to explain same. The imprint.

    I find C. Little’s comments typical of the weak minded, blind followers of religion who, for some very strange reason that I have never be able to understand at any point of my life, choose not to think for themselves, but rather to follow and repeat recitals of myth, lore and gospel. Its such a common “condition” among the general public that I’ve learned to ignore it, but really that is the edge of a very slippery slope. As entertaining as that simple minded and highly limited mindset is, it demands condolences more than anything else, and has no place in this forum.

    Although seemingly harmless at initial glance, the ignorant and uninformed must not be allowed to disrespectfully sidetrack or interfere with the important work discussed here, however cute or humorous they may find their own commentary on our topics. Chicken Little being the perfect example.

    The real problem, the real threat, is that any bolide big enough to really mess up the Earth again will take more than a few months to divert, and yet this is likely the longest we may have to plan for the 10′s or 100′s of thousands of sub-1km diameter objects that likely exist, after detecting them, given the present state of our early warning infrastructure. And just to be clear, even TITHING won’t solve that problem when it presents itself. Believe it. Have FAITH in that FACT.

    Most folks need to wake up an realize that other nations, other religions than their own are NOT the threat they should be worried about. Nor should their children. The most those threats will do is cause a few years or decades of recession after we invade one of those countries and fight some protracted war there that we didn’t need to, or after we allow greedy corporate interests to pilfer middle class wealth through mega-banking shell games (as in the present state of the world economy).

    The real threat is the source of the nano-diamond powder right under your feet, just a meter or few under the surface. Coincidently the same source as the 5 to 10 inch thick soot and charcoal immediately above that nano-diamond layer. Over multiple continents. Extinction level event(s).

    Heads up.

    Mr. Harris

  • Hermann Burchard

    Tom, where exactly can I find this:

    \ . . was then able to characterize the possible mechanism by which more than one thousand cubic kilometers of perfectly pure, perfectly clean, perfectly uniform grain size sand could be emplaced over a significant percentage of the continental USA as distal ejecta from a colossal shallow angle bolide impact on a continental ice sheet, relatively recently in history, without leaving a major crater (aside from the Saginaw trench).

    Could you please post URL to were you explain CB formation? I dug a little bit and found your reference to Richardson’s work on Deep Impact comet cratering. Looks very promising!

    (At the time I was busy submitting my own paper to the journal editor and missed your posting.)

  • Barry Weathersby

    I grew up in a part of the South where the bible was unquestioned. Even in science classes in a public school I was chastised for asking questions that the answers might have not agreed with scripture. Probably one of the reasons I didn’t go on in a scientific field. I still remember most of the biblical stories about disasters and always thought they were either completely made up or the product of hallucinogenic substances. But I was looking for information on the YD and ran across this site. Shazam! I even read E.P.’s book and it was like, WOW, this is the same stuff that is in the bible! (Dennis, I know you won’t agree with that but I pretty much agree with everything else you have written.) Makes more sense than some of the explanations I hear from professional geologists. But throw in the Greek, Roman and Norse stories about their gods and it all starts to make sense. I know there are many other cultures with other explanations of things they couldn’t possibly understand but I’m not familiar with them. And I even think an interesting project would be to go back to the origins of astrology and compare it to the events we know happened. And sometimes it’s hard for me to picture, but if there was an enormous event in one part of the world large enough to cause a worldwide climate catastrophe, no one in the rest of the world would know about anything but the effects.

    To me, the most important issue brought up here isn’t whether or not the YD was caused by a stream of cometary debris, but the fact such collisions have occurred throughout the Holocene, and in the spirit uniformitarianism are ongoing and will continue to happen in the future. But as Mr. Harris points out, this isn’t a concern of our present leadership. Or of anyone’s leadership.

    As for faith, I’ve heard three definitions I like. Jimmy Buffet said faith is believing in something because that’s what you were taught to believe. Richard Nixon said faith is believing something because you want it to be true. But the one I like the best is still the first one I heard. Mark Twain said faith is belivin’ somethin’ you know ain’t so.

  • carol smith

    Actually, the Younger Dryas may not have been caused by a stream of cometary debris. It could just be a result of the orbit of the earth encountering a densely dusty region of space, the trail of a comet that had passed by somewhat recently. Something has to account for the longevity of the Younger Dryas and a dusty region of space may explain not just the Younger Dryas but the various Heinrich events that preceded it. The really strange thing about the Younger Dryas is that it ended so abruptly. One day it was cold (in summer) and bang, the summers were warm. Why? We may assume the Earth was in resonance with any Clube or Napier like comet or Taurid complex stream – would this cause a prolonged event. Other considerations might be Pole Shift – not that I am saying Pole Shift occurred at the Younger Dryas but that the Earth might have wobbled on its axis of rotation, gradually reverting itself back to where it began.

  • Carol,

    Pole shifts of large rotating bodies such as earth take a long time. The short period of Earth’s polar precession is on the order of 26k yrs. There are shorter period librations due to the moon but they are inconsequentially small in magnitude.

    Herman B. – I’m working on a short version of the sand emplacement mechanism to put up here within a few days, but must work on it only after I’m too tired to do my full time job safely (shop related). I’m at crunch time now at work on a long project. I need a few hours to type and edit for clean post.

    Here is an interesting link to new work on Lunar formation theory with a shallow angle impactor at very high velocity being the culprit, explaining the essentially identical isotopic composition of Earth and Moon. That’s because in shallow angle impacts, most or all of the impactor keeps going and ‘flies’ down range at nearly the same velocity as approach. Did someone say shallow angle impact!?!

    http://m.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/28052/

    TH

  • George Howard

    Thanks for the comments, guys and girls. I am still struggling for the proper way to integrate Steve and other improved moderation. But the good news is I have purchased a beautiful new Apple iMac for our living room (and home of the Tusk). I have found the ability to post and keep up with comments is still correlated, even in these days of miniaturization and mobile devices, to the size of the input device. Least tusk from iPhone, more tusk from iPad, more tusk from this winter’s purchase of MacBook Air, yet more from new work 27′ iMac shortly after — and now a one terabyte home desktop in the shadow of the Tusk.

    I’m finally well-wired. Stay tuned.

  • Thomas,Carol,

    Don’t confuse a reversal in the polarity of the Earth’s magnetic field, which would result in the North and South poles trading places, but has nothing to do with precession, or the rotational momentum that’s a consequence of the mass of a large, rotating body with a physical pole shift.

    If fact, the geologic record indicates that pole reversals are a regular and common event.

  • …and that these geomagnetic polar ‘excursions’ may be related to ‘external causes’ such as impacts, etc., according to the (minority) opinion of prominent Geophysicist Dr. Richard A. Muller

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller

    sorry for the wiki reference.

    The excursions are relatively well mapped by sea floor cores correlated over large geographic areas of sample taking. I have not read anything about such GMag excursions affecting climate, but it would change the route by which radiation approaches Earth through the Geomagnetic field.

    TH

  • Hermann B.

    My ‘short’ emplacement mechanism dialog for CBay formation is probably too long to post here after my session last night ending after 4 am.

    e me through the ‘contact’ page of my web site (and be sure your e-dress is in the email – mine is when I test the channel, but it my remote hosted website may just have mine memorized)

    http://www.BrownstoneBeam.com

    and I’ll e you back a copy in PDF or just plain text in the email (the new old fashion way). Likewise anyone else, although I’ll also send Mr. Howard a PDF if he can post up somewhere on the site.

    TH

  • Hermann Burchard

    There is no provision for comments on the latest Mike Davias in Charlotte posting, George, so I post this here: In the paper, Very high-temperature impact melt products.. there is a report (by George Howard) of using a hand auger to extract a core from the CB rim that contains a black mat section. So apparently the bay rim is younger than the black mat. This contradicts the > 130K year age for the CBs based on the age of the Wando terrace. Could not the Wando river have eroded all of the bays on the terrace? The core seems to confirm deposition of the CB sand immediately post YDB black mat formation.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hermann, why are you assuming that all impactite layers have to come from the HSIE? Or that all black layers are impactite layers?

    Hi Barry, glad you enjoyed reading “my” book. I just passed on what was passed on.

    As far as the Bays go, Steve’s earlier comment on the need for dating samples from the underlying clays pretty much sums it up. Without that fundamental data, its all speculation.

  • Hermann Burchard

    Ed, no I don’t assume that at all, it’s just from his coring with a hand auger in a CBay rim and hitting the YDB layer just below, that it looks that way. This is in the appendix to the PNAS “Very High-Temperature Impact Melt Products . . ,”
    SUPPORTING INFORMATION (download PDF):

    http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/
    doi:10.1073/pnas.1204453109/-/DCSupplemental

    BTW, see my 2nd comment under “Charlotte GSA..” with same content.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>